I’ve always believed that I’m a good writer. But at the same time, I’ve always believed I still have much to learn.

At the intersection of these two opposing ideas is the place where I wonder whether, at this moment, I’m good enough for traditional publication.

Whether my historical fiction WIP, which I’ve believed in long enough to have now gone through three (soon to be four) drafts, is now good enough to at least pique the interest of a publishing professional, let alone snag and hold that interest for the duration.

And then there were three: first (green), second (blue), and third (clear) drafts of my WIP

It almost happened too fast for me to have any thoughts on the process at all.

Compared to the marathon of completing the second draft of my historical fiction WIP—which amounted to a complete rewrite of a draft written years ago—there was no way, I told myself, that I’d spend another year on draft three.

I’ve read a lot of writing craft books in my life, but until recently, none of these were about revision.

The reason being because, until recently, I never had a completed, novel-length work in need of revising.

Never being the sort put the proverbial cart before the horse, I always wanted my education in writing to occur in an orderly sequence, comprising only those aspects of which I’d have immediate use. This way of thinking served me well for the past 16 years, less the six of those I temporarily gave up writing altogether.

Not that those who read my blog don’t get a sample of my writing every week.

And not just a small sample either. I’m hardly one to skimp on either my words or the ideas conveyed with them.

No one has ever accused my writing style of being “spare”. In university, I played the usual word-processor tricks with font size and margins, but in my case it was because my reports were always too long, not too short.